Lions Series - Accidental Offsite?

[Ian_Cook]

1. The line-of-touch runs thru the AR, not the thrower, so both Red (at the front) and Black (at the back) are offending.

Err, no.

The AR has his flag down. That means he is no longer marking the LoT because he is satisfied that the Red hooker is ready to throw from the correct place.

You could argue that the Black tailgunner has marginally closed the gap, but the three Red players in the middle are really taking the piss! FFS, one of them is actually standing IN the Black lineout!!!

Now this crap was allowed to go on by all the French referees on this tour. The only only referees who dealt with it correctly were the SANZAR refs; JP in particular told the Lions to stay out of the gap in the line out and to stop talking (and that was another bugbear of mine, the Lions screaming at the referee to hurry up the throw-in) This is behaviour that needs standing on with a size 12 boot!

2. Please show me where 'closing the gap' is referenced in the Laws. I did find:.

I posted it earlier

[LAWS]Law 19.8 Forming a Lineout

(l) Two single straight lines. The lineout players of both teams form two single parallel lines
each at right angles to the touchline.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

(m) Opposing players forming a lineout must keep a clear space between their inside shoulders.
This space is determined when players are in an upright stance.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

Metre gap. Each line of players must be half a metre on their side of the line of touch.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line[/LAWS]

If you fail to keep the space (or gap) then you are "closing the gap"

 

[OB..]

If the argument that Faumuina should be (rightly) penalised for instinctively tackling someone who is carrying the ball running at the line should be penalised, the same holds true here.

You are claiming that the two scenarios are sufficiently similar to be directly compared on one aspect. Setting up to go for a tackle is not in itself instinctive, whereas reacting to a completely unexpected occurrence certainly is. Different "offences" and both difficult situations, but I do not think there is a useful direct comparison.

The footage clearly shows Owens lifting his arms to catch the ball.

As I said, his instinct kicked in before his brain had time to analyse the situation.

 

[didds]

It wasn't so much the setting up to tackle - but the process of not stopping the tackle when KS jumped that is at issue.

didds

 

[OB..]

What is the intent of the offside law that says a player who is in front of a team mate who last played the ball is offside and one way of putting himself onside would be to run behind the team mate who touched it before playing the ball himself?

We know that a kicker can run forward to put team-mates onside, so in that case the offside line must be moving with him (though that is not the way the law book expresses it).

However if we applied that to moving backwards towards his own DBL we have a nonsense, as has been pointed out. He might even be putting team-mates offside!

It therefore makes rugby sense to deal with the two situations differently.

 

[ChrisR]

From Ian: "The AR has his flag down. That means he is no longer marking the LoT because he is satisfied that the Red hooker is ready to throw from the correct place. "

Er, no.

Responsibilities of the AR/TJ: (d) When to lower the flag. When the ball is thrown in, the touch judge or assistant referee must lower the flag.

Agree with you that this is a shambles and should have been addressed.

 

[_antipodean_]

You are claiming that the two scenarios are sufficiently similar to be directly compared on one aspect. Setting up to go for a tackle is not in itself instinctive, whereas reacting to a completely unexpected occurrence certainly is. Different "offences" and both difficult situations, but I do not think there is a useful direct comparison.

Having set up for a tackle, it is as instinctive to do so when the attacker has the ball as to catch a ball. The difference is Charlie had about half a second from when Sinckler leapt at him to making contact. He'd already seen the pass and had identified the recipient.

Owens had a second between the ball hitting his teammate and catching it.

As I said, his instinct kicked in before his brain had time to analyse the situation.

So what? He still played at the ball. Not some vague notion of determining if he sufficiently meant to.

We know that a kicker can run forward to put team-mates onside, so in that case the offside line must be moving with him (though that is not the way the law book expresses it).

However if we applied that to moving backwards towards his own DBL we have a nonsense, as has been pointed out. He might even be putting team-mates offside!

How, exactly?

 

[DocY]

How, exactly?

Running towards his own dead ball line - if the line moves back with him, any team mate he passes will be in an offside position.

 

[ChrisR]

Running towards his own dead ball line - if the line moves back with him, any team mate he passes will be in an offside position.

No, not true. If a teammate is onside when the ball is played he won't be then off side if he runs past the ball-player or the ball-players runs back past him.

The question only applies to a player who is in an offside position when the ball is played.

The laws only reference the 'player-of-the-ball' and makes no reference to 'where-the-ball-is-played'.

Do the Laws always make sense? BWHAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Ian_Cook]

From Ian: "The AR has his flag down. That means he is no longer marking the LoT because he is satisfied that the Red hooker is ready to throw from the correct place. "

Er, no.

Responsibilities of the AR/TJ: (d) When to lower the flag. When the ball is thrown in, the touch judge or assistant referee must lower the flag.

Agree with you that this is a shambles and should have been addressed.

That might be what the Laws say, but that is not what appears to happen in practice.

In this case the Red thrower is standing with feet apart, the ball over his head and ready to throw. Unless the AR taps him on the shoulder and gets him to move, then for all intents and purposes, he is standing on the LoT, besides which...

[LAWS]LAW 19 Definitions
The line of touch is an imaginary line in the field of play at right angles to the touchline through the place where the ball is thrown in.[/LAWS].

ergo, if Red throws the ball in where he is, then that is the line of touch

 

[didds]

In this case the Red thrower is standing with feet apart, the ball over his head and ready to throw. Unless the AR taps him on the shoulder and gets him to move, then for all intents and purposes, he is standing on the LoT, besides which...

[LAWS]LAW 19 Definitions
The line of touch is an imaginary line in the field of play at right angles to the touchline through the place where the ball is thrown in.[/LAWS].

ergo, if Red throws the ball in where he is, then that is the line of touch

... otherwise we are back to the thread from a couple of weeks ago where the general consensus seemed to be you'd be seen as finecketty in the extreme to get the thrower to move a small distance to the real LoT.

didds

 

[ChrisR]

. . . . . and when the AR marks, and stands with flag raised, at the place where the ball went into touch and the two lines of players line up on the the AR and the thrower wanders up and takes up a position directly in front of his own line and throws in the ball then 14 players and an AR are all in the wrong?

Yes, I see the logic in that.

 

[VM75]

Ironically, had KR not shoved LW toward the BIL GL with his mid air legal [if he didnt touch the ball & knock it forward ! ] then the ball might not have been propelled backwards for KO to catch legally.

You can't be offside solely cos the last player to play the ball is simultaneously hard-shoved purposefully downfield, that's not reasonable.

FWIW I couldn't understand how BIL were still in the game, the AB should have had this game in the bag before halftime.

Mostly I was disappointed that I declined to wager £20 on the very tempting 30-1 draw price being offered pre kick off - fool me fool me !

Kaino's Swinging arm should've seen Red, so NZAB can thank RP for that one !

As Ian said for SBW

Went High

Impact with head/Face

With force

AWJ with an HIA outcome

- "There is NO wiggle room... that is a straight red, all day, every day and twice on Sundays"

 

[OB..]

Running towards his own dead ball line - if the line moves back with him, any team mate he passes will be in an offside position.

No, not true. If a teammate is onside when the ball is played he won't be then off side if he runs past the ball-player or the ball-players runs back past him.

The question only applies to a player who is in an offside position when the ball is played.

The laws only reference the 'player-of-the-ball' and makes no reference to 'where-the-ball-is-played'.

[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.[/FONT][/LAWS]
If you argue that the offside line moves with the kicker, then if the kicker runs back past a team-mate, that team-mate is now in front of him and therefore offside.

Fortunately I don't think anyone interprets the law like that.

 

[Dickie E]

The place where the ball was touched is the point through which "offside line" passes. That line can move towards the touching player's opponent's DBL but it cannot move toward the touching player's own DBL.

This, then, is the crux of the whole debate. If Ian's point is true (which I support) then Owen couldn't be offside because the ball was knocked backwards (ie towards Red goal line). And even if that isn't 100% because the knock was in the air, it certainly isn't C&O offside.

 

[Rushforth]

This, then, is the crux of the whole debate. If Ian's point is true (which I support) then Owen couldn't be offside because the ball was knocked backwards (ie towards Red goal line). And even if that isn't 100% because the knock was in the air, it certainly isn't C&O offside.

I agree with Ian too. If only he could agree with himself!

 

[Rushforth]

Rushforth, the gif thingy didn't work for me but I assume you're saying that a knock on only occurs if the ball travels towards the opponent's DBL? If so, that is not how I see the world. If the Blue SH passes the ball at 45° to his flyhalf and the flyhalf only gets a finger to it such that the ball is still travelling towards the Blue DBL but only less so, that is still a knock on.

I see now that the image failed to upload properly, but your question is clear enough (I think).

As I mentioned before in this thread, it was John West who convinced me that the momentum (League, to my father's mind! But my father was also a cricket umpire) interpretation of the forward pass was necessary because of Physics.

The scenario you describe is precisely the scenario I used to ridicule the momentum interpretation (before I was a referee, although after the Australian video). And actually, this ties in with "Clear and Obvious", which is terminology I was becoming aware of around the same time, 10 years ago.

Ignoring any challenge by Black #8 or the fact that Red #16 is in front of the potential catcher, if the ball travels backwards from a spectators viewpoint I can't see how it can be a knock on from EITHER the momentum perspective which is now part of law, OR my old saw.

Anyway, rather than ramble on, a picture of the three frames that failed to load as an animated gif. Parallex errors are in the favour of those closer to the camera.


Apologies for the scroll bar on the right side of the middle image in irfanview, but the yellow arrows show how the ball continues to travel towards the BIL DBL after it is touched in the air and before it is caught by Red #16 temporarily behind that point.

Note also the Red player in the final frame appealing (not good, but neither is the way Black #8 is pretending to try to catch the ball, which is what he is appealing about).

 

[Dickie E]

Rushie, I agree that the ball continued to travel towards the Red goal line after the contact by the Red player in the air. The chap with the grey head gear is a good reference point.

However, If the ball was travelling at x mph before the contact, then less than x mph after the contact, then that is a knock on.

I refer you to this:

If the Blue SH passes the ball at 45° to his flyhalf and the flyhalf only gets a finger to it such that the ball is still travelling towards the Blue DBL but only less so, that is still a knock on.

And following on from that (based on comments by OB, Ian Cook and others about the movement of the offside line) I am forming the view that if the ball goes backwards from a player in general play, then it is impossible for a team mate who plays the ball to be offside.

 

[Rushforth]

Rushie, I agree that the ball continued to travel towards the Red goal line after the contact by the Red player in the air. The chap with the grey head gear is a good reference point.

However, If the ball was travelling at x mph before the contact, then less than x mph after the contact, then that is a knock on.

I refer you to this:


And following on from that (based on comments by OB, Ian Cook and others about the movement of the offside line) I am forming the view that if the ball goes backwards from a player in general play, then it is impossible for a team mate who plays the ball to be offside.

I'd like to recommend that everybody concerned watch the excellent Australian video that I included in post #20 again.

As referees, we aren't out there looking for offences to punish. Not that we don't have to do that too, mind.

Suffice it to say that I didn't think of the defending offside line being an issue when the whistle went. The only thing which became less C&O is that Black #8 may have actually touched the ball when I thought it was a reckless challenge.

But let me be clear: if the interpretation of momentum as law is accepted in attack, as it has been, and as I have accepted it, then it is quite bizarre to expect defenders to be penalised for minor changes in impetus when they haven't even had a chance to control the ball yet.

 

[liversedge]

The whole ball going backwards but touched and deviates such that it still goes backwards as a knock-on is the real problem here.

How many times have you (or seen others) shout "Backwards! Play on" when this happens ? I can think of many such occasions, especially from a kick off, where the player is standing sideways such that any fielded kick will still go backwards after being touched (but would be a knock on according to many here).

For me, if the ball doesn't travel forward relative to the pitch then its not a knock on, ever.

 

[Rich_NL]

If the ball was travelling at x mph before the contact, then less than x mph after the contact, then that is a knock on.

Again, can anyone please justify this in a clarification, because the law book says explicitly otherwise.

And I suspect that if the full-back is running backwards and stretches up, just getting his fingertips to a kicked ball that slows significantly but still lands 5m behind him (closer to his DBL), you'd look a fool calling for knock on regardless of the equations of motion.